ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.
C.P No. S- 61 of 2011
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
1. For Orders on M.A 7564/11
2. For orders on office objection
3. For Orders on M.A 1009/11
4 For Katcha Peshi
07.10.2011.
Mr. Muhammad Sulleman Unar, Advocate for Petitioner.
=
1. Granted.
2. Over ruled.
3. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
4. Through this constitutional petition the Petitioner has impugned the judgment dated 31.8.2010 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge Hyderabad in Rent Appeal No. 28/2010, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has concurred with the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Hyderabad in Rent Application No. 62/2007, and dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner.
Per learned Counsel, two courts below have not considered the material and the evidence adduced at the trial in its true perspective; the impugned judgment is a result of misreading and non-reading of evidence hence the same is liable to be set aside. It is contended that though the Petitioner is owner/landlord of the premises in question and filed rent application on the ground of default as well as personal bonafide need but such aspect was not considered in according with the settled principle of law.
Heard learned Counsel and perused the impugned judgments. Admittedly there are concurrent finding of the fact recorded by two courts below. It is settled principle of law that when the competent forums having jurisdiction have reached at the conclusion, same cannot be substituted by the finding of High Court in constitutional jurisdiction, event he learned Counsel could not pinpoint any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
JUDGE